Morality in 10 Cloverfield Lane

Originally written for Horror and Psychoanalysis at the University of Vermont

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016, dir. Dan Trachtenberg) does what few sequels in the science fiction and horror genres attempt: it changes subgenres entirely. It follows 2008’s Cloverfield, a found footage blockbuster about a giant monster attacking New York City, and a man with a camera just trying to survive. Its sequel, which was released a whole eight years later, follows a young woman, Michelle (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who is knocked unconscious in a car accident, and held in an underground bunker by a man who claims to have saved her from a nuclear apocalypse. Not unlike Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs (1994), 10 Cloverfield Lane takes place almost entirely in a single location and with only a handful of actors. The film uses the tight, claustrophobic setting of the underground bunker to provide the audience themselves with a greater sense of anxiety. This is exacerbated by the main antagonist of the film, Howard Stambler (played by John Goodman), who physically towers over his two captives and intimidates them both physically, and subtly with guilt. This essay examines the actions and precautions taken by Howard, and attempts to determine whether Howard is the true villain, or a savior. 10 Cloverfield Lane effectively portrays the dilemma facing the captives by blurring the line between savior and kidnapper in its antagonist. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the film’s ending, specifically after Michelle leaves the bunker, will be ignored. Howard is killed prior to her escape, hence there is no need to take these events into consideration. However, it is worth noting that Howard was correct in that the apocalypse had occurred in the outside world, but that it was due to an alien invasion opposed to the hypothesized nuclear war Howard had claimed. 

Perceiving Howard as ill-intentioned is not difficult in the first act of the film. Following the car crash, Michelle wakes up in an empty room, handcuffed, and with a needle attached to a saline drip in her arm. The room is aesthetically similar to that in Saw (2004, Dir. James Wan), with sickly green walls and flickering fluorescent lighting. Following Howard’s explanation of their situation, Michelle is able to settle into her new home. Throughout the second act, Michelle and the third survivor, a carpenter named Emmett (played by John Gallagher Jr.), uncover clues as to who Howard really is, his motives, and whether or not it is safe to leave the bunker. 

One of the first events to support the hypothesis that Howard is ill-intentioned, is the significant plot point revolving around his daughter. Howard introduces Megan by showing the two a photo of her and explaining that she has since passed. Later, when fixing an air duct that leads to a room above ground, Michelle finds “help” scratched into a window and with traces of blood. She also finds earrings that are identical to the ones in the photo. While neither Michelle nor Emmett confront Howard directly about this, it is revealed that Megan was kidnapped from a local high school. This revelation leads the two to believe that Howard is the one who kidnapped Megan, and not that Megan was kidnapped from Howard. 

Therefore, it is worth analyzing Howard as an experienced kidnapper and seeing similarities between studies by psychoanalysts on kidnappers and rapists, and their portrayal on screen in 10. 

Beginning with early psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud famously and controversially argued that events experienced by women such as kidnapping and rape, are partially self perpetuated by those seeking to repeat past traumas (Freud, 1896). More modern psychoanalytic studies have expanded on this notion to focus on the male psyche when committing these horrific acts. A 1971 study led by Dr. Murray L Cohen determined four classifications of rapists through different motives. They are (1) intense sexual motives, (2) rape a defense against homosexual wishes, (3) expression of hatred towards women, and (4) general predatory disposition that is not driven by hateful or sexual desires (Cohen et. al. 1971)

It is safe to rule out motive #2 as there is little indication Howard is gay, and moreover that the motive itself has more than likely been disproved over the years. Beginning with motive #1, there is evidence for Howard being sexually frustrated. He is middle-aged, unmarried, and has been obsessed with building a bomb shelter for years following the supposed death of his daughter. He is obese, and uses his size as a vehicle for intimidation. In combination with his aggression towards Michelle, especially in comparison to his relationship with Emmett, I would argue that Howard can be categorized as an involuntary celibate. He blames women for his celibacy when in reality he is the one at fault. Given this, Howard is most likely a combination of motives #1 and #3, sexual, and hatred towards women. 

An example of Howard’s aggression towards women can be seen in the now infamous dinner scene. In this scene, Howard has just let Michelle out of her cell after explaining the situation to her. 

The scene opens with a sexist remark. Howard says “As cooks go, I’m OK. Not great, but OK. Megan was a good cook. You’ll learn to love cooking.” The latter sentence is directed at Michelle. This is said despite Emmett also being at the table, meaning Howard is pushing his captives into the roles which he defines. Michelle as his wife, and Emmett possibly as their son. 

The scene continues with Emmett mocking Howard’s cooking by sarcastically calling it the best pasta he has ever had given the circumstances. Howard calmly responds with “That’s not a bad point” then chastises him for using foul language at the table. This tells us that Howard looks down on Emmett, and yet has more patience with him than with Michelle as we will see in a moment. 

Emmett goes on a tangent about wishing he had gotten more tattoos before the world ended. Howard is silent and unmoving until Michelle chuckles in reaction to Emmett making a joke about getting “YOLO” on his forehead. Howard immediately turns to Michelle and glares at her disapprovingly. This can be perceived a number of ways, two of which being that he thinks the two are being flirtatious, breaking his defined roles for them, and the other that he disapproves of Michelle’s happiness at all. Regarding the latter, Howard’s demeanor is serious at all times except when he himself is talking. This implies that he is only comfortable when he is in control. 

This is further supported when Emmett suggests the idea of them starting a long game of Risk to pass the time. As soon as Howard gets the feeling that Emmett will continue talking, as he had before, he interrupts and commands him to stop talking. He says neither he nor Michelle appreciate Emmett’s humor. He speaks for Michelle without her giving any indication that she has a preference. 

Michelle then tests Howard's patience by flirting outright with Emmett. She grazes her hand on Emmett’s when asking for the pepper, and upon taking it from Emmett, Howard lashes out and corners her against the wall, yelling at only her for disrespecting him. Howard does not yell at Emmett even though he had caught on and was obviously trying to anger Howard as much as Michelle was. 

We can infer from this scene that Howard does not like having his preferences threatened. He feels as though Emmett and Michelle are taking advantage of him, and should be subservient to him in return for saving their lives. This supports the hypothesis that Howard is truly ill-intentioned and a rapist, kidnapper, and murderer, given the observations discussed in the aforementioned 1971 study. 

A definitive similarity between Howard and the descriptions posed in the journal is the presence of Explosive Personality Disorder, more commonly referred to as Intermittent Explosive Disorder (to be referred to as IED)(Cohen et al., 1971). IED is most present within motives #3 and #4 (sexist hatred and rape-aggression diffusion). Signs of EPD include disproportionately violent responses to situations, such as what Howard expressed at the end of the dinner scene (Coccaro, 2010). 

Another disorder common in rapists with a sexist motive is Antisocial Personality Disorder (Cohen et al., 1971). Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by the disregard for social norms and morals (Benjamin, 1996). Returning the claim that Howard is an involuntary celibate, this description is well supported. Being antisocial may have forced Howard into solidarity, hence pushing him to commit unspeakable acts to satisfy his sick, sexual, sadistic desires with Megan, should that theory be correct. 

Before moving on to reasons for why Howard can be perceived as in the right, it is worth concluding that he is clearly a flawed character. For the reasons previously stated, Howard is not dealing with the apocalypse well. He is stressed, has a short temper, and of course, may have kidnapped, raped, and killed an innocent teenager. Howard may be physically prepared for the apocalypse, but certainly not fully prepared mentally. Granted, who would be?

Defending Howard is like playing the devil’s advocate, at least superficially given that we see the events of the film through the perspective of Michelle. For that reason, it is important to take her and Emmett’s fear out of consideration, and look at Howard’s actions from his own perspective and worldview. 

Howard is a seasoned doomsday prepper and survivalist. Preppers are characterized as paranoid people who will do whatever necessary to stay alive (McGraw et al., 1986). In pop culture, reality shows such as Doomsday Preppers profit off of the exploitation of this paranoia.  Some go as far as to describe modern preppers as “...today's zeitgeist of fear of a world-changing event” (McNamara, 2013). However, in such shows and media, few survivalists are as prepared as Howard. He claims to be fully stocked for over two years without ever needing to leave the bunker. 

A 1986 study determined the reasons different groups had for preparing for disaster. The groups questioned were self identifying activists, survivalists, and members of the general public who did not describe themselves as either. The study determined that activists were more focused on war preventability, while survivalists were significantly more concerned with war survivability, at a rate of over twice that of the general public (McGraw, 1986). Given these two quantitative and qualitative descriptions of preppers, we can infer that not only is Howard a survivalist, but he is likely in the top tier of preppers regarding effort and investment in survivability. 

Given the nature of the physical space the film takes place in, as well as the oppression Howard inflicts on his captives, it is worth taking the concept of biopower into consideration. By cross-examining the micro-politics within the shelter with biopower as expressed by nations, we can better analyze Howard’s intentions and payoffs from his actions. 

Social theorists argue that because the body is the only physical, real, and essential part of the human, institutions focus on human survival above all else (Neroni, 2015). This reflects the sole institution in the bunker in 10. Of which, Howard, a paranoid survivalist who will do anything to survive, is the only one in charge. Therefore, it makes sense that Howard will take whatever precautions to ensure his survival following the disaster, just as he took all the necessary precautions to survive prior to it. 

This can be seen once again at the end of the dinner scene. Howard saw a threat to civility within the bunker, and extinguished it with force. In a group of three, regardless of the external circumstances, two people engaging in sex or romance creates tension within the trio. The tension is often a product of jealousy, uncomfort, or awkwardness. Michelle and Emmett becoming involved would be even more dangerous given that they are all locked in a small room for potentially years. 

But of course, Howard had prepared for this possibility already. Shortly realizing that Howard may be the one to have kidnapped Megan, Emmett and Michelle begin to construct biohazard suits in secret. When noticing some tools and materials were missing, Howard confronts the two. The following is another close scene analysis of this interaction. 

Howard initiates the interaction by giving very little information to the two with what the talk was going to be about. He opens a hidden cabinet, pulls out a barrel, and asks the two to pull it into the bathroom. When they ask what it is, Howard responds with “A barrel”. He gives such little information as both a way to intimidate the two, and also to hide any indication that he was prepared to kill them should the catch on and fight him. 

In the bathroom, the three are standing around the barrel. Howard opens it and states that it is pyloric acid and can dissolve all biomatter on contact. He then pulls out the stolen tools and materials. Michelle and Emmett play dumb, trying to hide the fact that they have been planning to escape. Howard then drops the tools and materials in the acid, showing the highly corrosive properties. He asks “Do you think I’m an idiot?”, facing and speaking to Emmett. It is most likely that when push comes to shove, Howard perceives Emmett as a greater threat to him than Michelle, hence why he faces him rather than her. 

The two fess up, realizing that Howard knows about their plan. It is worth noting that Howard also has a gun on his hip, and Michelle and Emmett are unarmed. Emmett lies and tells Howard that he was making a weapon so that he could get the gun from Howard, and then use it to make Michelle respect him as she does Howard. He says this to both save Michelle should things go south, and as a compliment to Howard. Howard thanks Emmett for his honesty, and promptly shoots him in the head. 

Howard’s next actions are the most revealing. Michelle is clearly distraught, and Howard corners her, hugs her, and tells her that he had to do it so they could be safe. In this scene, he extinguishes the threat to the greatest extent, and with maximum precaution. Problem is, he lets out the line that “This is the way it was meant to be” which may imply that he had planned to kidnap and rape a woman all along. 

Before delving further into drawing final conclusions about Howard, biopower played a large role in the pyloric acid scene. First, Howard uses a threat to their bodies as a response to the threat they pose to his world and order. Moreover, while nothing graphic is shown, Howard wanted to at least get the two to respond to the acid the same way audiences respond to body horror. While still discussing the possibility of Howard as a savior, he exhibits sadistic perversions in this scene. The sadist in him wants to instill fear in Michelle and Emmett through anxiety, and the potential of pain (Neroni, 2015). 

Howard in 10 Cloverfield Lane is complicated in that he survived against all odds, and saved two people from certain death. Yet, his precautionary tendencies have not faded post-disaster, causing him to take drastic measures to keep his fellow survivors in line, and alive. However, while Howard’s morals are in the right place, and he is well intentioned in that he wants what is best for humanity’s survival, his judgment is clouded by the paranoia of his own mortality. For this reason, we can conclude that Howard is in fact the true enemy of 10. Michelle and Emmett had their lives saved by Howard, but all of their survival depended on his ability to live peacefully, not within a perfect world. His fatal flaw is that he did everything in his power to make reality what he wanted it to be, rather than what was best for Michelle and Emmett as individuals.

Works Cited

• Benjamin, L. S. (1996). Diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

• Brody, Richard, and Richard Brody. “The Psychological Fakery of ‘10 Cloverfield Lane.’” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 19 June 2017, www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-psychological-fakery-of-10-cloverfield-lane.

• Coccaro EF. "A Family History Study of Intermittent Explosive Disorder," Journal of Psychiatric Research (November 2010): Vol. 44, No. 15, pp. 1101–05. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pubmed/20488459 

• Cohen, Murray, et al. “The Psychology of Rapists.” Seminars in Psychiatry, vol. 3, 1971, pp. 307–327.

• Foucault, Michel. “Bio-History and Bio Politics.” Foucault Studies, vol. 18, Oct. 1976, pp. 128–130.

• Freud, Sigmund. “The Aetiology of Hysteria.” Complete Psychological Works, vol. 3, 1896. Hogarth Press.

• Freud, Sigmund. “Moses and Monotheism: Three Essays (1939). Essay III. Moses, His People and Monotheist Religion. Part II. Summary and Recapitulation.” Complete Psychological Works, vol. 18, 1954, doi:10.1037/e417472005-607. Hogarth Press.

• Mcgraw, Kathleen M., and Tom R. Tyler. “The Threat of Nuclear War and Psychological Well Being.” International Journal of Mental Health, vol. 15, no. 1/3, 1986, pp. 172–188. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41344420.

• McNamara, Mary. “Survivalist Themes in TV Shows, Movies Tap into Fear of the Big Fall.” Los Angeles Times, 15 Dec. 2012, www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2012-dec-15-la-et-st-tv-film-revolution-hunger-games-fear-20121216-story.html.

• Neroni, Hilary L. The Subject of Torture: Psychoanalysis and Biopolitics in Television and Film. New York: Columbia Press, 2015.

• “Vulnerabilities.” The Resonance of Unseen Things: Poetics, Power, Captivity, and UFOs in the American Uncanny, by Susan Lepselter, University of Michigan Press, ANN ARBOR, 2016, pp. 1–19. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gk08ms.4.

• Zalkin, Emily. “Psychoanalytic Feminism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 2011.